[embedded] Use __has_feature(swiftcc) to detect Swift calling convention
#72345
Conversation
|
If https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85347/files causes |
kateinoigakukun
force-pushed
the
katei/has-feature-swiftcall
branch
from
cc3c83a to
864779e
Compare
|
Please test with following PR: @swift-ci Please test WebAssembly |
|
Please test with following PR: @swift-ci Please test |
| // RUN: %clang -target wasm32-unknown-none-wasm %t/check.o %t/rt.c -nostdlib -o %t/check.wasm | ||
| // RUN: %target-run %t/check.wasm | ||
| // REQUIRES: executable_test | ||
| // REQUIRES: CPU=wasm32 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you point me to a CI job that actually runs these executable WASM tests?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wasm CI runs executable tests on WasmKit runtime: https://ci.swift.org/job/swift-PR-Linux-crosscompile-wasm/31
| @@ -28,8 +28,7 @@ | |||
| extern "C" { | |||
| #endif | |||
|
|
|||
| // FIXME: Replace with __has_feature(swiftcc) once that's added to Clang. | |||
| #if __has_feature(swiftasynccc) | |||
| #if __has_extension(swiftcc) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we use __has_feature(swiftasynccc) || __has_extension(swiftcc) to be compatible with older compilers for a while?
@compnerd Do all windows builds use a just built compiler such that this is not a concern?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's worth being conservative here.
…vention This change replaces the use of `__has_feature(swiftasynccc)` with `__has_extension(swiftcc)` to detect the SwiftCC availability. The former condition works fine for most platforms that support both SwiftCC and SwiftAsyncCC or neither, but it fails for WebAssembly, which supports SwiftCC but not SwiftAsyncCC. We add `swiftcc` extension to Clang, and use it here.
kateinoigakukun
force-pushed
the
katei/has-feature-swiftcall
branch
from
864779e to
5c26620
Compare
|
Please test with following PR: @swift-ci Please test |
kateinoigakukun
force-pushed
the
katei/has-feature-swiftcall
branch
from
5c26620 to
1e11d0f
Compare
|
Please test with following PR: @swift-ci Please test |
|
Please test with following PR: @swift-ci Please test WebAssembly |
|
Hmm, https://ci-external.swift.org/job/swift-PR-windows/23188/console // SWIFT_CC(swiftasync) is the Swift async calling convention.
// We assume that it supports mandatory tail call elimination.
#if __has_attribute(swiftasynccall) && (__has_feature(swiftasynccc) || __has_extension(swiftasynccc))
#define SWIFT_CC_swiftasync __attribute__((swiftasynccall))
#else
#define SWIFT_CC_swiftasync SWIFT_CC_swift
#endif |
`swiftasynccc` is now an extension instead of a feature, so we should use `__has_extension` to detect its availability.
kateinoigakukun
force-pushed
the
katei/has-feature-swiftcall
branch
from
1e11d0f to
1f91d95
Compare
|
Please test with following PR: @swift-ci Please test |
|
Please test with following PR: @swift-ci Please test WebAssembly |
|
Please test with following PR: @swift-ci Please test |
|
Please test with following PR: @swift-ci Please test WebAssembly |
This change replaces the use of
__has_feature(swiftasynccc)with__has_feature(swiftcc)to detect the SwiftCC availability. The former condition works fine for most platforms that support both SwiftCC and SwiftAsyncCC or neither, but it fails for WebAssembly, which supports SwiftCC but not SwiftAsyncCC.This change depends on llvm/llvm-project#85347
Close #72343